Thursday, 25 September 2008

Well, when I initially visited the doctor about my vasectomy I also had torn the cartilage in my knee. My visits to the quack normally works like this, I save up 3 or 4 issues until I get something serious enough that I cannot wait any more and then go bustling with ailments to present for her delight.

I always suspected that this makes me somewhat unpopular with the Doctor, but I recently changed practises and my old GP, Laura, was evidently sad to see me go, so I assume that it is only the receptionists who become irate. Where do such obnoxious women come from anyway? Is there a doctors and dentist receptionist nest somewhere, churning out mentally retarded clones, with only the very worst being selected to be a school secretary?

I digress.

Anyway, the severity of my knee injury (I am awaiting a call from my surgeon as we speak) distracted somewhat from the old vasectomy nad-hacking and the chat I had with the locum at the time was fairly minimal. Today I have to have a proper talking to.

The thing is, I rather fancy that I DO want to keep my old chap in full working order. I know it sounds harsh, but the reason that we want no more children is a) we have enough, but more importantly b) that Jim is a bit knackered after squeezing three out and frankly does not think that she is physically up to a rematch. Whether she is with me or anyone else, Jim just does not want to go through another ppregnancy.

On the flip side if, for the sake of argument, Jim dies, perhaps after being mauled to death by a jaguar which has swum across the Atlantic or a leopard which has walked across from Africa and stowed away on the Chunnel (and I hope it's the jaguar because I prefer spots in my rings), I might find me another special lady.

Not straight away, you understand. I'd leave a reasonable period of 4 or 5 days before moving a new woman into the house.

Anyway, what if this new lady wants sprogs? It seems hardly fair to deny her simply because Jim doesn't feel up to the task. Bloody slacker!

Anyway, for whatever reason, I am told that we have decided that, since sterilisation is so much more invasive than a vasectomy, it is Manley who needs to have a sodding great blade thrust into his genitalia and, if that is what we have decided, who am I to argue?

Anyway, tonight is round two of the vasectomy quest. I'm off to see Dr Watson to discuss the removal of my fertility. wish me luck.

Vasectomy was unrelated to mortality from all forms of cancer (relative risk, 1.01; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.25). Among men who had a vasectomy at least 20 years earlier, the procedure had no relation to mortality from all causes (relative risk, 1.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.33) or that from cardiovascular disease (relative risk, 0.85; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.63 to 1.16). However, mortality from cancer was increased in men who had a vasectomy at least 20 years earlier (relative risk, 1.44; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.92). The excess risk of cancer in these men was due primarily to lung cancer. None of the observed associations were confounded by smoking habits, body-mass index, alcohol consumption, or educational level..Vasectomy is not associated with an increase in overall mortality or mortality from cardiovascular disease. Our study also found no increase in overall mortality from cancer.